The applicants had no interest in dragging out the proceedings because that would prolong their remand in custody and because they did not consider themselves guilty.

It was adjourned because several experts failed to appear.

V.K. also asserted that he had previously given different testimony because of pressure from his employer. 24.

    On 3 June 2013 the Ministry granted that extension for twenty-four months because the situation in Belarus had not improved.

and Mr E.S. replied “Simply because this man has been racketeered and robbed by [the applicant].

Even so, the Court of Appeal discontinued the criminal proceedings because the prosecution had become time-barred. 11.

Article 6 of the Convention the applicants, who are members of the managerial team of the Veterinary College of Physicians, complained that the proceeding before the final-instance court were unfair because

The applicant filed a petition with the Constitutional Court which was dismissed, mainly because there was no right under the Constitution to exercise the post for which he had been elected and because

The Constitutional Court emphasized that under domestic law a case could only be referred back to a differently composed court when the decision appealed against had been set aside because of a substantive

Law – The Court found a violation of Article 5 §   4 because the remedy provided for in domestic law had not observed the principle of equality of arms between the parties, and a violation of Article

In 2014 the university stopped the distribution of the book, on the grounds that it might have a negative effect on minors because of its depiction of same-sex family relationships.

In 1987 the applicant brought an action for abatement ( tenkis davası ) against her stepmother, claiming that she had been deprived of her reserved portion ( saklı pay ) in the inheritance because of her

He claimed that he had no intent to conceal that information, because the CEC had already been aware of his daughter.

His claim was eventually dismissed as time-barred because the civil courts found that the five-year statutory limitation period for seeking compensation had elapsed.

COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings were not fair because he had not been summoned for the hearing before the Supreme Court of Justice and because

It held that because of the seriousness of the offence, the ground of upset to the legal order remained and that there was a risk of reoffending, because the report of the probation and social rehabilitation

The Athens Administrative Court of Appeal declared the appeals inadmissible because the applicants did not pay, as set out in the law: i) the court fees, calculated as a 2% of the value of the dispute

The assets were considered proceeds of crime because of the applicant’s criminal conviction, and seeing that he had not proved sufficient lawful income to rebut the statutory presumption on their criminal

The applicant complained about the lack of impartiality of the judge sitting in a single judge formation at the Timiș District Court, because in November 2020, the judge allegedly made prejudicial remarks